Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @07:07PM
from the f@#k-those-f@#king-f@#kers dept.

MBGMorden writes "It looks like in an act that defies common sense, a bill has been introduced in the South Carolina State Senate that seeks to outlaw the use of profanity. According to the bill it would become a felony (punishable by a fine up to $5000 or up to 5 years in prison) to 'publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.' I'm not sure if 'in writing' could be applied to the internet, but in any event this is scary stuff."

Don't think it can't happen. The hysteria-over-liberty mode of thinking that pervades every level of our legal and court system has resulted in significant erosion of all manner of what would, to a sensible person, seem to be rock-solid and unmovable declarations of constitutional rights.

We have seen the right to remain silent turn into the right to be tortured until you say what they want to hear; we have seen the 4th amendment turned into an irrelevancy by nattering idiocy about your papers being in digital form; we have seen the commerce clause turned on its very head; we have seen the establishment of "free speech zones" and other 1984-ish/esque crushing of liberties; censorship is the accepted norm for "solving" disagreements about what we see, say and hear insofar as it might offend some poor, weak-willed moron; screams of "save the children", "terrorists" and "global warming" drive legislators to write, and pass, the most odious, anti-liberty and outright anti-American legislation on a daily basis.

There's no limit to this, either; we have seen the specific directive not to pass ex post facto laws ignored at the congressional level and then whistle right through the supreme court; we have seen the explicit directive of the 2nd amendment's operative clause turned into the most moronic and sophist idiocy about "what is a militia?", a non-issue mined blindly and moronically out of the prefatory clause.

Don't think it can't get worse. Ask yourself instead, why should you expect it to get any better?

fuck, now i have to go to the fucking state house and tell Sanford and all the other asshole to gtfo. Who's with me! Imagine, a bunch of Slashdotters holding up signs that say Get the Fuck out. I hate living in this state with these fucking retards.
Fuck!

I live in South Carolina, and honestly this is one of the stupidest things I've seen my state do (did I mention we tried to secede from the union, still have a town named secessionville, AND re-enact a war we lost?)

Since this will soon be illegal, please allow me to say it: FUCK THIS STATE

Yeah, because if we do this then other states may soon follow, then hello censorship (although I fail to see how the first amendment does not automatically/dev/null this). There's another guy here on/. I know in real life (initials S.F.) - a hardcore libertarian that I'd hope finds out about this, because swearing is not something I want to have to do in a sound-proof room in my house after a hard day (see the connection between that and pot smoking? yeah, thats how bad it would be).

But like an AC said above, this is only on the senate's desk, and has not even gone through the process of being voted on yet, so there is still time and possibly a chance that we don't have to censor ourselves here. Trust me, if this gets passed and other states get interested, we'll soon see how escalation is not just for privileges.

And while people defended voting for something clearly non-Constitutional by saying Congress doesn't determine what is Constitutional, I think the spirit of the 14th Amendment suggests the government should not pass bills that remove our basic rights.

all you folks need to remeber that profanity is NOT covered in the first amendment, it protects political free speech, not calling each other names or the like.

It's scary how misguided you are. Here's the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Kindly point out where it states that only political speech is covered. Profanity is most definitely covered by the First Amendment. You are thinking of obscenity which is a different animal and one that has had a shifting definition. Saying you're a fucking nitwit is entirely within my rights.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, the Supreme Court has found that free speech is NOT an absolute. And it's not just "indecent material" and hate speech. You also can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (to use the typical example). And you can't say untrue bad things about somebody else without being vulnerable to defamation law suits. There are exceptions.

With that said, this proposal is appalling. Who ever thought Demolition Man would become a reality.

"You are fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality statute."

It seems they're taking the "protect the children" route. That will probably help their odds of getting it passed. But one can only wonder how long it takes before something like this (if passed) would lead over into the virtual world, like how the protect act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003) was able to convict someone to 20 years in prison for having cartoons which depict underage-looking girls engaging in sexual acts (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJ-ZPbjBP2nc1wF3JqIbElBYgKngD9563DJO0).

censorship is the accepted norm for "solving" disagreements about what we see, say and hear

Censorship in America is largely self-imposed, by industries, not something handed down from the government.

why should you expect it to get any better?

Because this particular attempt is so much of a violation of the first amendment, it's laughable. It would go to the Supreme Court, and that law would be overturned, very likely with plenty of bad press all around.

So, in essence, you want to eradicate masculinity in the English language completely. I'm guessing you're a feminist.

First problem: confusion. There are a plethora of unisex names in American society. Casey, Stacey, Aaron/Erin, Alex, just to name a few. The neutering of "he" and "his" when using those names as the subject of a sentence is only going to result in confusion when that name turns out to be masculine instead of feminine.

Second problem: identity. The presence of only one sex in a language never works. Hence the reason there are no languages that have only one sex. Russian, Spanish, English, Czech, and Slavic are all languages I know at least a few words in, and all of them have at least 2 sexes present, they have to. Sexuality is a major and important part of our identity, and is often how we personalize ourselves within our speech. You wouldn't appreciate it in the least if I referred to you as a handsome man (or handsome for that matter, it is a masculine adjective; whereas beautiful is unisex, and pretty is feminine), nor would I appreciate it if you referred to me as a pretty woman.

Third problem: sexuality. Sex is half of our identity. It drives our instincts and our demeanor. Masculinity in communication is just as important as neuter or femininity, for the simple reason that it needs to be communicated. Neutering the adjectives that describe men as men only alienates, and does not help facilitate communication. Women are vastly superior at communication on average than men, so it may not bother or hinder them as much, but men identify themselves in everything they do. From work, to play, to speech and even in nonverbal communication, they identify themselves as men. Taking away that ability to do so in speech serves absolutely no purpose, nor any service to a society as a whole.

On the other hand, I don't find any problem with simply eliminating the feminine form of most nouns, such as waitress or hostess or even actress, simply because the words that were feminized in the first place held no particular masculine form. The Marines did it in no distasteful fashion when they eliminated the term Woman Marine, because a Marine is a Marine, whether female or not. It's a great example of the seamless conversion from sexual centric speech to actual speech. A pilot is a pilot, a soldier a soldier, a man a man, and a woman a woman. Your job doesn't change because of your breasts, your sex does.

In conclusion, nothing will be served by neutering masculine adjectives in the English language, it will only make things stupid.

You are talking about President Eisenhower and he added it to the anthem. Now...if you are such a militant atheist that you will get your panties in a twist about "under god" in a damned song then I seriously doubt you will be bothered to actually go look at anything he said or did other than that. So here are some choice words from Ike

Don't join the book burners. Do not think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.

I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center.

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

He also had a rather lengthy speach warning America of the Military Industrial complex and how allowing the privitization of the military will only lead to more conflict due to its profits (Halliburton?). So all of you out there who just rant and whine about "evil Republicans" I suggest you actually read up on some of them and realize that this new breed of psychotic right wing religious bastards don't even begin to resemble one of the greatest Republicans ever. By all means though, go on whining about "under god" in the damned anthem if you can't be bothered to actually look into anything. Oh and last time I checked "under God" was not the establishment of a state religion by a LONG LONG LONG damned stretch, so really...might wanna look up what that whole separation of church and state is actually about before blathering on about any of that being "illegally".

The Constitution did not have "under God" added in the 1950s. It simply did not. No matter what you may have heard, it did not. Go back to Civics or Social Studies or Happy-Feel-Good-Hippies-R-Us or whatever your lackluster school calls it these days and kick your teacher in the ass if you were taught that anyone added "under God" to the Constitution.

in Michigan we have a "no swearing" law and from time to time it gets used. It hasn't ever got far enough thru courts to actually get overturned, but usually it gets far enough to punsish somebody because it's only $100 or 30 days in jail. They had to be very careful when it was written to include the protection of "women and children".. because disallowing adult men to swear at each other would be a first amendment violation! I've though this would be a great way to make a woman-free, child-free club by having a "swearing club" where men could exercise their freedom of speech... either courts would have to allow discrimination or they'd have to overturn the swearing ordinance!

Here in NY, my friend and I were threatened with arrest because my friend flipped off a neighbor who cut him off. The guy called the cops, cop shows up at my friends house and proceeds to tell us that making an "obscene gesture" is a crime.

I once related this anecdote before here on/., and had to deal with some morons calling me a liar, saying that such a thing couldn't possibly have happened.

One of my ex-girlfriends was of Hispanic descent, and was born in New Mexico. While living in Rochester, NY, she was driving her mother's Ford Escort, which had New Mexico plates on it.

One evening, a Rochester police officer followed her home to our suburban apartment from her downtown office. In the parking lot, he proceeded to detain her and demand that she present her green card, since she was obviously a Mexican given the plates on her car. The fact that she had a valid New York driver's license, and plenty of other supporting identification documents, didn't override the damning evidence of the registration tags for this officer.

The ex-girlfriend, having relatives who were cops, politely objected. The officer apparently called his sergeant for backup. When the sergeant arrived, he educated the patrolman on the fact that New Mexico is part of the United States, and people from New Mexico are U.S. citizens who do not need green cards...

There are plenty of intelligent cops out there. There are also some astoundingly stupid ones. This is why we have laws and Constitutions that limit police power.

Purgatory is different than Hell, being a temporary state. "Hell" would stay in the original sentence, regardless of translation, unless you're reading a particularly Bowdlerized edition. (And even then, it would simply be incorrect rather than a difference in translation)

According to the bill it would become a felony (punishable by a fine up to $5000 or up to 5 years in prison) to "publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature"

Isn't that a little vague? Now, I don't really know that much about laws, but I did hear once that there's some kind of law in effect that keeps a bill from being passed unless it is specific enough. If a law like that exists, I wouldn't think this bill would meet that requirement.

Either way though, this certainly seems to violate that first amendment thing...

No, there's no law that says you can't pass bad laws. Courts can strike down laws that violate the Constitution, or laws (or more usually, parts of laws) that are too vague to be enforceable, but that's after the law gets passed, and usually not until somebody tries to enforce it.

But this law isn't "void for vagueness" - courts, including the US Supreme Court, have allowed obscenity laws that have "community standards" rather than explicit definitions, and Justice Potter Stewart famously said about obscenity "I know it when I see it". This law's sufficiently clear and way over-the-top about what it's trying to prohibit, it's just blatantly unconstitutional.

The real question is why the politician is trying to propose such a law when he should know better. Is he really ignorant enough not to know better (unlikely, but quite possible)? Is he trying to excite his base so they'll give him more money next election? Is he following a promise he made when he was running? Is he trying to get some other politicians to oppose the bill so he can accuse them of being in favor of profanity and obscenity? Or is he just being rude to the public?

I don't think there is something anybody could say or write that is obscene as flying the Confederate battle flag of the army of North Virginia from the state house of state with a large black population.

Even worst, it's ammending a bill from 1976, which outlaws the following (among other things)"Seduction under promise of marriage."Fornication"Communicating obscene messages to other persons without consent."

I know every state in the United States has laws that should probably be better defined or come off the books all together. I would think that if you are going to add to a bill, you would update that bill at the same time. That way prostitution wouldn't carry a fine of 200 dollars and thirty days in j

Are there ever going to be enough laws? In 1000 years time will there be the need for a law which doesn't exist now? These fuckers aren't willingly going to just put down their pens and stop. We need to stop them.

"Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing - with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for the second and third place." - Robert A. Heinlein

Michigan had an anti-profanity passed in 1897. It outlawed cursing in front of woment or children. In 1989 a canoeist was charged with violating the law after hitting a rock with his canoe and releasing a stream of profanities in front of a family.

He was actually found guilty the first time around. The court of appeals though threw out his case and the law. Here though if he had been convicted it would only have been a $75 fine and community service.

Unless S.C. wants to outlaw all language altogether, they're looking at something that's not even enforceable. So they ban your standard fucks, shits, and cunts. Awesome. Are they thinking new euphemisms and curses aren't going to spring up to fill the void? Failing creation of new words, are they going to prosecute the intent behind words used? If I can't express my displeasure about my boss in South Carolina using traditional profanity, will they go after me if I call him a doody-head?

Funny thing about language. It's creative and evolves. Even profanity is changing and twisting meaning - in some (usually male) teenagers today, 'fuck' is used like 'like' or 'um' might be used by certain other groups of people. There may not necessarily be any obscene intent behind the word, and may just be used as filler.

If you guys _still_ want to secede from the US, I think now we'd be willing to reconsider!
Keep doing stuff like this, and it will be an easy decision.
You're embarrassing all of us!
Yours truly,
A Yankee

It is sponsored by ONE guy, and it was instantly referred to committee. Why is this even news? There is ALWAYS one guy that wants to stick his penis in the whole to see what happens... why should a group like a state's congress be any different?

Every ultra fundementatlist wants to control every action of every other person to fit thier own limitations. Everyone has to eat meat, or cannot eat meat. Everyone has to dress in a suit, or not.

What a vague law like this does is two folds. It allows such scumbags to control what is and is not allowed in public. It is ok for the taxpayer to pay for the distribution of the ten commandants so a certain christian beliefs can be forced onto the public, or for the public to pay for teachers to sit there and do nothing while students are forced to pray, but not ok for libraries to carry Harry Potter because it is profane.

Second, it allows scum bags to target people they don't like. You don't like the color of your neighbor, turn him in for exposing your kid to profanity. It is simple enough to do.

Just to get an idea if this was the purpose of such laws, or if I was being paraniod,I took a look at the SPLC hate group map. South Carolina has the largest number of hate groups in that area, about one hate group per 100,000 persons. In comparison, the reletively conservative state of Texas has about 1 hate group per 350,000 persons. I am not sure if there is a state with a higher percentage of hate groups.

Really this is likely just another effect of the seating of the soon to be current US president. States like this, and thier white population, has been courted by the republicans for 40 years, rallied by the fear of the person who looks differnt. Times have changed, but the fear mongering has lasting effect.

"Really this is likely just another effect of the seating of the soon to be current US president. States like this, and thier white population, has been courted by the republicans for 40 years, rallied by the fear of the person who looks differnt. Times have changed, but the fear mongering has lasting effect."

There are still many ways states can distinguish themselves, though. Try re-legalizing slavery. Have a governor declare himself the State Duke for life. Totally outlaw alcohol. Declare pi to be 3.0. Require residents to quarter soldiers.

Ok folks - I live in SC - So I can say with some certanty - CALM DOWN.

1) This is just a BILL introduced in the Senate. I don't see anything on the House calendar indicating that it was also filed there, and if there was a SERIOUS push to make this happen, you'd see a similar bill in the house.

2) He submitted this SAME BILL the last THREE sessions. Thats the last 6 years. See session 117 [scstatehouse.gov], 116 [scstatehouse.gov] and 115 [scstatehouse.gov]. Quite frankly I didn't go back any further but he may have introduced this same bill before that, too. EVERY TIME this bill has been introduced, it has died in committee.

3) This guy has a terrible clearance rate. ZERO general bills on which he's the primary sponsor have passed in the last few sessions.

4) I bet if you look, you'll find this same type of legislation popping up in other state houses or county councils... and dying just as quickly. Someone's always going to try - doesn't mean they'll get anywhere and DOES NOT mean to freak out.

Who the fuck thought that shit was a reasonable punishment for such a minor fucking transgression? Lemme get this fucking straight -- you can drive 100 miles an hour down the god damn freeway, potentially putting fucking lives at risk, and probably get off with no more than a few days in jail, at worst, but if you fucking swear in the process, you're looking at five fucking years?

What the fuck?

It is unlawful for a person in a public forum or place of public accommodation wilfully and knowingly to publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.

Well, at least they had the foresight to clearly define a standard for determining what is and isn't profanity. And clearly outlined the ways in which this wouldn't constitute a violation of the first amendment.</sarcasm>

I wanted to be fucking funny by posting a goddamn comment with shitty profanity in it, only problem was I got fucked in the ass when the stupid browser ate my comment, and twice no less. This law is so motherfucking unconstitutional as to be dead the instant the son-of-a-bitch is enacted, but that's not why I'm mad; I'm actually kind of amused at how assinine these cocksuckers in the state capital can be. What I'm mad about is the browser ate my comments, twice and I let it get away with it.

Stupid Asshole me allows this shitty browser to lose what I typed in here, then I re-enter the message but instead of using an external program to store the comment until I could post it, I allow myself to be fucked-in-the-ass a second time and it loses my comment while I'm formatting it. I am typing this in a separate program, I won't get bit a third time.

Here's how the statute is unconstitutional:

Cohen v. California [wikipedia.org] , 403 U.S. 15 (1971), guy is wearing jacket in the county courthouse (but not in the courtrooms) which reads "fuck the draft." Is convicted for disturbing the peace. Conviction overturned; these mere words are inadequate to constitute disturbing the peace, and the idea does have First Amendment Protection

People v. Boomer, 655 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. App. 2002), guy in canoe hits rock, dumps him into river, he responds with loud curses that are heard quite a distance away by police officer and a family with kids.

The police officer ticketed Boomer, citing him for violating a more than 100-year-old Michigan law that criminalized the use of profane language in front of women and children.

The Michigan Court of Appeals threw out Boomer's conviction and overturned the Michigan law, stating that "allowing a prosecution where one utters 'insulting' language could possibly subject a vast percentage of the populace to a misdemeanor conviction." The court went on to hold that the law violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and that it would be "difficult to conceive of a statute that would be more vague." First Amendment Center [firstamendmentcenter.org]

Idaho v. Suiter [findlaw.com] (2003), man goes to police station to talk to them about a check fraud case dealing with his friend, but apparently they can't do anything with him because he's not the one who committed the crime. This gets him mad, and after he's told to leave, tells the cop to go fuck himself, and turns to walk out the door; is charged and convicted for disturbing the peace. Idaho Court of Appeals upholds conviction. Idaho Supreme Court overturns conviction; "the phrase was the vulgar equivalent of saying 'go jump in the lake.'"

There are far too many others to list, but even misdemeanor or fine-only charges have been struck down; a felony law wouldn't stand 30 seconds.

Everybody likes to make fun of the backwards southerners but expressing obscenity is already a violation in New York with wonderfully vague wording for the convenience of the jackboots and brown shirts.Section 240.20 Disorderly conduct

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

...

3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

ARTICLE I.DECLARATION OF RIGHTSSECTION 1. Political power in people.All political power is vested in and derived from the people only, therefore, they have the right at all times to modify their form of government.SECTION 2. Religious freedom; freedom of speech; right of assembly and petition.The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government or any department thereof for a redress of grievances.